On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Aleksey Midenkov <midenok@...> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Timothy Pearson
>> No, the programmers were/are not worse, but the project goals apparently
>> changed.  Simply compare the size of the Qt3 vs Qt4 library for an example
>> of this!  Qt4 decided that they wanted to be a compositor instead of
>> passing compositing off to the native display server, and most of the
>> performance problems and drawing limitations stem from this decision.
>
> Hmm, interesting news. Ok, that's a good reason to stay with Qt3. I
> don't like how Qt4 performs either.

Hmm, I've just read of a little bit opposite. On Xorg Qt4 uses XRender
for composing by default. This is done on server side and this engine
is very slow. If to switch Qt4 to raster engine, then performance goes
to normal. Here is an article:

"How to drastically boost up your KDE 4 performance by using the Qt
raster rendering engine"

http://tinyurl.com/644b7a5